Proof of identity

[Suzi]

That can be very painful!

Dear God don't let Clacky see that possibility!!!

[Suzi]

Now it's taken me a while to get to this thread c/o tradesmen arriving drinking tea and talking for England...Don't ask!

BUT the one thing that springs to mind is.....How The **** did we get from The Shroud......via Nunners .. to this?

Suz??i x

[Bob Hinton]

Answer The Questions

The problem with you Nunners is that you bring up all these silly ideas and when someone presents you with cold hard facts you just ignore them and plough on. You expect people to believe you but you don’t engage in a debate, that is putting forward argument and answering points, you just keep ranting on.

Now I have made several points in my post no 27. Are you going to answer them and put your case or are you just going to suck your thumb and complain that the nasty man is calling you names?

[Bob Hinton]

Bob,

The only person that would know if the signature on the statement of Hutchinson belonged to his father, or not, whatever the case may be, would have been the late Reg, and as to my knowledge he never suggested a negative response to that statement, and the handwriting,. I will still claim that Gwth was Hutchinson .
I hope that makes some kind of sense to you, but i have reservations.
Regards Richard.

More nonsense. I would suggest that an expert in handwriting analyisis such as Sue Iremonger would be in a far better position to say whether the signature on the statement was that of GWTH. Or are you saying that Reg was a handwriting expert?

In any case you are making a silly point. Whether or not Reg said the signature belonged to his father is not recorded in the interview.

If you wish to claim GWTH made the statement that is your perogative and I would not dream of tying to stop you from doing so, all I am saying is that there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim and a great deal to the contrary. In the same way you can claim to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy if you wish and I'm sure no one would dispute your right to do so.

Please feel free to call me Bobbers if you wish.

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
I had just finished a long reply to you when my post was lost, which was just as well as it contained some strong points.
Will you please refrain from using the term Nunners as it has nothing to do with my name which is Richard.
Whilst I accept that term from some members as some form of a nickname, your use of it comes across as Mickey taking.
The only person that would know if the signature on the statement of Hutchinson belonged to his father, or not, whatever the case may be, would have been the late Reg, and as to my knowledge he never suggested a negative response to that statement, and the handwriting,. I will still claim that Gwth was Hutchinson .
I hope that makes some kind of sense to you, but i have reservations.
Regards Richard.

[Doctor X]

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin found to carbon date miraculously to the time the story of the shroud first was circulated? Roughly 1200 years after Christs death.

Worse than that it was also judged a hoax at the time. An investigator even had the artist:

So the Shroud is really incompatible; and there is no history of the Shroud for 1,300 years. The Shroud first showed up around 1355 to 1357 under suspicious circumstances and was being used as part of a faith-healing scam. We know this from a later Bishop's report dated 1389 to Pope Clement. The Bishop says that people were being hired to pretend they were sick, and when the Shroud was revealed to them, they would pretend they were cured. So as he put it "they cunningly robbed the pockets of the unsuspecting," and eventually the matter was hushed up, and eventually the Shroud surfaced again. The Bishop tried to put an end to it; people wouldn't listen to him. He appeals to Pope Clement; Pope Clement hears the matter and adjudicates it; he determines the Shroud is just a representation and not the True Shroud. The fact of the matter is that the Bishop's predecessor had actually found the artist and he had confessed. Now, they don't give his name, and of course the pro-Shroud people like to just dismiss this as hearsay, but the fact of its artistry is supported, as we will see, on many fronts. Not only by the lack of history up to that time [the mid-13th century].

Joe Nickell

Right . . . what is this forum about?



--J.D.

[Bob Hinton]

Sorry Bob. I meant 'Richard'. I got my Clacks and my Nunweeks mixed up. Old age and all that.

Mike

That can be very painful!

[The Good Michael]

Who is Rob and what story are you referring
to?

Sorry Bob. I meant 'Richard'. I got my Clacks and my Nunweeks mixed up. Old age and all that.

Mike

[Bob Hinton]

When Will It Sink In?

I’m sorry Nunners old chap but you are just talking absolute rubbish here and it’s about time you stopped.

Like it or lump it, common sense taking everything into consideration points to a man called George Hutchinson witnessing a event around 2am on the morning of the 9thj November1888, and reporting it to the police albeit not until the 12th.

No, we don’t have to rely on ‘common sense’ here; we can rely on cold hard evidence – his statement to the police, which is in the archives. This is evidence.

Like it or not taking many factors into consideration, it would appear that the man in question was George William Topping Hutchinson father of the late Reg

No it doesn’t. The man who wrote the statement was George Hutchinson, you keep referring to George William Topping Hutchinson – the different name should give you a clue.

Also the signature of George Hutchinson is different from George William Topping Hutchinson. So taking only two factors into consideration it appears that these are not the same people, in just the same way as you are not Richard James Nunweek born 12 October 1962 in Perth Western Australia!

Of course Bob could be correct in his assumption that GWTH, was simply cashing in a a name that happened to be the same as himself, but does common sense point to that?

How is he cashing in? I have never said that, only that GWTH made up a story to tell his son. Fathers do that you know!

Taking into consideration that his father relayed to his son all the details that the witness interviewed by Abberline stated


Where did you get this information? Certainly not from Reg. In his interview given in May 1992, he said:

“I remember he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police, but I’d never seen the actual statement until today when you came round” (Talking to Melvyn Fairclough and Joseph Sickert)

It is clear that Reg knew very little about the precise content, so where do you get the idea that his father relayed to him all the details? Also it is very clear from this interview that Reg knew nothing about the statement, which makes it impossible for him to have done a Radio programme about it in the 1970’s.

If you read Reg’s interview instead of just rushing in with your own inventions it is quite clear that he didn’t know any of the details. He didn’t produce the statement and say this is my father’s statement; he was shown it by Fairclough and Sickert and told that was what his father said. That my friend is not getting evidence, that’s stitching someone up!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
The term Lump it or like it, in reflection does seem like arrogance on my part, but it was not intended to be.
It was reference to it being a fact that a man going by the name of George Hutchinson alleged to have seen Mjk arpound 2am on the morning of the 9th, and gave the police a statement.
I was then simply endorsing my belief that taking many factors into consideration, that GWTH, was the most likely candidate for our elusive Hutchinson.
Regarding that Radio programme that nobody except me heard, i can only add that it did go on air, and it did feature Reg, and it did remark on payment to his father who was GWTH, I should also add that it was advertised in the Radio times, because thats how I knew it was going to be aired days before .
Whilst I appreciate members of this site are extremely suspicious of oral history, in this case I feel that Regs father was being honest right from that sighting of Astracan through to his recollections many years later.
The phrase Reg used on that programme to end his spot was 'My fathers biggest regret was that dispite his best efforts nothing came of it'
The saying 'Honesty is the best policy' comes to mind, but in the case of poor George Nobody [ except me] has ever believed him.
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

Bit confused?

I just have to say this about Rob's story. I have had discussions, independent of any newspaper articles or radio broadcasts, of the possibility of Hutchinson coming forward in hopes of something from petty cash. Indeed, I even wrote a bit of a satire on this topic, on this very site 2 years ago. Remember, all this was just surmise on my part, and on the parts of the others involved in conversation, but it rang true to us. Rob's story, though uncorroborated, rings true in that same fashion to me. It isn't a sealed and delivered package, but it is a possibility. How strong, I couldn't say.



Mike

Who is Rob and what story are you referring to?

If I started tellimg people I once owned a written confession from Joseph Fleming from the archives of Claybury Asylum, but had since lost it,....

I knew it, you old codger, you've had it all along haven't you?

Does he mention why he locks the door in Millers Court?

Happy Good Friday to you my friend.

[Ben]

Like it or lump it, common sense taking everything into consideration points to a man called George Hutchinson witnessing a event around 2am on the morning of the 9thj November1888, and reporting it to the police albeit not until the 12th.

Richard, mate, you can't just appoint yourself the final arbiter of "common sense" and then start instructing people to "like it or lump it" based on what you've decided is true and accurate. When other people "take everything into consideration", the chances are very strong that they'll arrive at a very different conclusion to yours, especially on the subject of Toppy and Reg.

Taking into consideration that his father relayed to his son all the details that the witness interviewed by Abberline stated

How do we know this? We don't. Reg could have made it up, GWTH could have made it up, the original Hutchinson could have made it up and so on and so forth and all the other "could haves" that seem far more likely than not to most commentators on this subject. You're asking us to "take into consideration" something that may never have happened...and probably didn't.

Lets not forget that Reg did not suddenly appear in a section of 'The Ripper and the Royals in 1992, he was very much relaying the same in the mid 1970s on air...

But you're using "Let's not forget..." in the context of something that you claim to have heard on the radio decades ago, and that nobody else has ever heard of, let alone traced. That makes it zero-provenance pending further inquiries. If I started tellimg people I once owned a written confession from Joseph Fleming from the archives of Claybury Asylum, but had since lost it, that too would come under the category of "zero-provenance pending further inquiries" for precisely the same reason.

Y'see?

[dougie]

Hello Folks,
I have been very adamant that Reg Hutchinson was the son of Gwt Hutchinson, and that man being the witness who described 'Astracan'.been the only one in Casebook land to have heard.
At the end of the programme Reg Hutchinson gave a account of his fathers recollections and stated that he was paid the sum of Five pounds for his efforts, that amount I should add might have been said as One hundred shillings , or Five Guineas.
Regards Richard.

one hundred shillings is /was 5 pounds......5 guineas is 105shillings(was)

[Celesta]

Pardon my ignorance, but is there anything out there in terms of genealogy concerning GH at all? If it is here, I have not tripped, in my ever-graceful way, over it yet. My impression is that the man just vanished from history with no trail. I would love to know otherwise. Any hints at all about him or possible descendants or ancestors, that are verifiable? That would be a major step in demystifying this man.